Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

angry tapir writes "China is blocking mention of Inner Mongolia on Chinese microblogs and social networking sites, as part of an effort to clamp down on protests that broke out last week in the region. Two of the most popular microblog services operating in China no longer allow users to search for the term 'Inner Mongolia.' Sina's and Tencent's microblogs have 140 million and 160 million users, respectively."

The U.S. Government has sold out to the highest bidder and no longer has the interest of the citizen at heart. In your example the highest bidder is Big pharma. In times it was the Chines Government. (Clinton and the bags of cash from PRC). Tomorrow, it will be the Mexican government.

-A country destroys itself from within long before the enemies can do so from without.-But then again according to You-tube I am a faggot, so you should not listen to anything I say.

What about those americans who try to shut down websites selling viagra over the internet?

You mean the plethora of websites peddling counterfeit prescription drugs that may contain little to no active ingredient? Counterfeit drugs that may contain some other drug than they are purported to contain? Counterfeit drugs that may contain harmful non-drug substances? Counterfeit drugs that have absolutely no quality assurance testing and no regulatory oversight to ensure they are not harmful to their users?

For every prescription drug site that sells genuine prescription drugs there are many more th

There's a difference between "try" and "censor". I also like how the US censors for "something little" while China censors for "national security". There's always someone to equivocate the vile actions of China to the considerably less vile actions of the US.

Actually the actions of the US seem more vile in this light. China censors with the fear of a national uprise, something that might endanger the nation. The US censor already when the revenue of a rather insignificant company is threatened.

Personally, I'd consider the latter worse. Censoring because you fear the nation is endangered (as real or imagined it may be, or as 'good' or 'bad' the government may be in the first place) is at least understandable. Censoring to protect the revenue stream of a company

Actually the actions of the US seem more vile in this light. China censors with the fear of a national uprise, something that might endanger the nation. The US censor already when the revenue of a rather insignificant company is threatened.

Of course, it seems more vile to you. I just want to point out that protection of the revenue of a rather insignificant company in international trade is a more valid and legitimate national interest than oppressing the populace and ignoring their petitions for redress.

Actually the actions of the US seem more vile in this light. China censors with the fear of a national uprise, something that might endanger the nation. The US censor already when the revenue of a rather insignificant company is threatened. Personally, I'd consider the latter worse

Then move there, and enjoy your reeducation-by-labor camps.

I guess for some people any article is an excuse to lament how terrible life is in one of the richest and freest countries in the world. Had it occured to you how whiney and petty your complaints might sound to those in Inner Mongolia, or to Liu Xiaobo, or to any of the folks who tried to protest during the Olympics?

Oh, now I've been hit, by the ultimate argument. "Don't like what $country_A does? Move to $country_B where it's so much worse!"

Are we so ingrained by two-party politics that we can only think in terms of the "lesser of two evils"? The idea that there is a way better than the lesser of two evils is so unthinkable that you cannot even imagine it?

Yes, I find censorship in the name of some corporation worse than censorship in the name of the nation. But the idea that I'd actually want neither is completely unt

Oh, now I've been hit, by the ultimate argument. "Don't like what $country_A does? Move to $country_B where it's so much worse!"

Im saying that if youre going to comment in an article on China about how much worse the US is, you should probably move out of the US. Im also remarking that I think you lack all perspective when you start claiming that speech in the US is worse off than in China because of copyright.

If you want to have a serious discussion about how to fix the very real problems in the US, thats fine. Just dont go claiming that China has more free speech than the US, because thats absolutely not true.

What I want to discuss is the intention of censorship makes a difference. We needn't discuss that the effects are worse in China.

There have been many instances of censorship for the sake of the nation's security, even in US history. Secret information, people getting arrested for leaking it (anyone remember Mannings?), the whole "security of the nation" thing. For China, people causing "unrest" is quite similar to this. Most people see this from the perspective of a person who grew up in the "free" world of

Granted, but you DID state that "The US' actions seem more vile in this light" which is what I took issue with-- however bad things may seem here, theyre still way better than they are over there.

As for some of your examples of censorship...

even in US history. Secret information, people getting arrested for leaking it (anyone remember Mannings?),

Manning was part of the military, and had a clearance. He took an oath (probably several) not to reveal the information he had. Lets put it another way-- is it censorship that Wikileaks keeps its sources secret? I understand they use NDAs there with binding legal clau

Having the ability to censor anything with the only justification being "because the state says so" means the state deserves to continue existing only because it already does, regardless of what anyone thinks, or how they are living, and no matter how reprehensible the state's other actions are. This line of reasoning equates "saving lives by stopping a riot" or whatever with "fascist regime deserves to stay fascist", even in the most vile and reprehensible cases like the D

Actually the actions of the US seem more vile in this light. China censors with the fear of a national uprise, something that might endanger the nation. The US censor already when the revenue of a rather insignificant company is threatened.

You say "already" as though you assume the US response would escalate further in the case of speech against the government. However, the US, unlike China, allows and tolerates dissent on the Internet, even against the government (and including allowing people to speak against its policies regarding things like copyright enforcement, BTW). We have a Constitutional amendment that guarantees this, which China most certainly does not.
And, BTW, don't discount the importance of intellectual property and the r

I.e. they ban Playboy so they can claim to be blocking porn to protect the innocent Chinese people from lascivious foreigners. Pretty much everything else on the list is there because the government wants to stop Chinese people discussing things like Taiwan, Tibet and Tiananmen.

Funny how Americans here will often claim that the US government claims to

Actually if you pay attention to the recent porn crackdowns in China instead of the simply leafing through the keywords being banned you'd know that they're pretty damn serious about the 'preventing the youths' morals from corruption' thing.

You mean, lets say, any Muslim in traditional outfit can enter a plane and because he is afraid of flying pray "Allah is great", without any fearing to be removed from the plane? You mean, one can wear a t-shirt with "fuck [name of local governor]" on it and police will threat him like anybody else? You mean one can not be imprisoned without seeing a lawyer for saying something which the police *considers* to be a terrorist threat.

Even when tensions were highest in Estonia, half of the public conversations one heard on the street where in Russian. While there may be cause for concern with the way that the Baltic governments treated their Russian minorities, this kind of hyperbole is not helpful.

The Estonian police don't bully anyone for speaking Russian. I usually speak Russian with older people when visiting Estonia -- which I do several times a year -- and never has anyone batted an eye (and they don't usually notice that I'm not a native Russian).

Yes, you have the right to say what you want. Actually, you're encouraged to and almost badgered to do it. Because our powers have noticed something: Nobody cares. Worse, since everyone may say what they want, we believe actually the bull that we're free to say what we want. Which is actually true.

We're just not free to listen to anyone we want.

Or, more accurately, our powers noticed that it does not matter whether me or you say something, not even when done in a blog or other means to make it public past the reach of our voice when standing on a soap box. Why? 'cause nobody listens. Duh. Only if you start saying things they don't like AND you get an audience, that's when they get active.

So, essentially, you're free to say what you want. Just hope you don't get too many to listen or you might be in trouble.

Sadly, you're correct. We're so used to our freedom that we don't bother defending it anymore. There is no outcry when yet another law gets passed that limits us and strangles us, that fences us in and takes away our liberty, plucking it limb from limb until we are free... to do what we get told to do.

We live in a time where death is such an unthinkable, horrible fate that nothing is worth risking it, not even defending our liberty. And I'm not e

How is copyright remotely similar to censorship? If I want to download an mp3 from some american artist I can pay them. If you are in China, you can't just pay to have access to the info China censors.

Simple: The vast majority of works while still in copyright, are out of print. You can't pay to get it, period. Also, it is difficult if not impossible in some countries to buy foreign things, because you can't obtain US$, much less in electronic form; and the importing can be limited or even blocked/forbidden (think of countries in USA's black list for example).

What is the freedom to speak good for if there is nobody who'd listen to it? That's basically why this right has never really been eliminated, and why most countries don't bother to. As long as you're not heard, you can scream as loud as you want to, and the louder the better so you add to the noise. Should anyone who isn't wanted to be heard speak loud enough, he'll get bullied 'til he caves in.

I think people in Bahrein and Libya and some other countries like China, for instance, will think otherwise. So people do listen to you, and they have some very nasty ways to stop you saying what you want.

Freedom of speech? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkHg3M6eUB8 [youtube.com]Look at how they ask people to shut up. Freedom of the press? Look at how they tell a news person (with the big camera) to stop filming.

You have the freedom to do as you are told. If you do not behave according to form, you will be arrested.

Yeah because the freedom to download a CAM rip of a sequel to a reboot of a recast of a movie based on a crap 1960's TV series for free and rather than paying a few bucks to see it in a cinema is totally the same as the freedom to call for people's rights under the countries constitution to be respected [wikipedia.org]

So people being sued for downloading bad copies of worse movies in the US is totally the same as Liu Xiaobo being arrested for asking the Chinese government to respect things like Article 35 of the Chinese co [peopledaily.com.cn]

Not all copyright is used for censorship, but it can be used for that purpose. For one well-known example, Disney uses it to ensure that some of it's early works are never seen (legally, anyway) again, as they featured some casual racism that didn't raise an eyebrow at the time but would be seen as unacceptable today. The Church of Scientology is also infamous for using copyright to prevent dissenters and critics from discussing it's books, taking legal action against any opponent of the church who quotes a

+5 for this pro-oppression Chinese propaganda officer? What the hell has happened to you, slashdot? Its a sad day when the statement that upholding intellectual property law is less moral than authorities deleting information from the web to stop information about human suffering from propagating is considered at all "insightful".

I can't help but wonder where wikileaks is on this subject. There was soo much hope and potential for wikileaks to be universally recognised across countries, continents and cultures as being pro liberty. Sadly the recent diversions have hindered this cause.

What an unfortunate coincidence. I'm sure there was absolutely no connection between Wikileaks annoying the heads of all major governments on Earth and the mysterious, sudden, and unexpected backlash of the media against them. It will be one of the 21st century's enduring mysteries for future anthropologists to ponder, like how Lady Gaga became famous.

Well, that's all for our news slot! Next, a poodle who barks The Marseillaise - in Libya!

I dunno, but if I were with the Falun Gong/Mongolians/some other oppressed minority in China I'm not sure I'd be entirely happy that someone is calling for a genocide of Chinese people in my name. Because that would be the sort of thing the Chinese government would find useful to justify what repression they have. So if you posted this in an attempt to help the Falun Gong/Mongolians et you're seriously misguided.

Of course if you posted this to get your proverbial fifty cents from the CCP, then good job. To

On Second thought, maybe your are right. I would not want to give any reason for any more oppression of Mongolia / Tibet / Fulong Gong. The CCP can do that on their own.

To the Thought Police in the PRC;

I am not Mongolian, Tibetan, or a member of any religious organization that you have deemed illegal and highly dangerous to the peace and harmony of society. The above comments are my own and meant as a joke, and are not representative of the opinions of any of the above mentioned group

We need to do even more business with the Chinese. Because, of course, i've been told my entire life as an American that capitalism in the form of sweat shops, then KFCs and Walmarts are the way to overthrow governments and win the hearts and minds of people. So the more evil China does, the more business we need to do with them, FOR FREEDOM! Or something.

We need to do even less business with the North Koreans. Because, of course, i've been told my entire life as a Canadian that refusing to do business with Bad People is the way to overthrow governments and win the hearts and minds of people. So the more evil North Korea does, the less business we need to do with them, FOR FREEDOM! Or something.

I actually fully await for the US to start doing something similar some day. The PROTECT IP Act. et. al. are already a good way in the same direction, the next logical step would be "PROTECT CHILDREN Act" or "PROTECT INNOCENCE Act" which would allow the government to start censoring material for "ethical reasons."

The Tunisian contagion finally reaching China? Somehow I feel that all these "big" countries will suffer the same fate. China may actually collapse under it's own weight if something like this continues. Heck, the Tunisian revolution started from some small village in the south of it and then spread like fire on grass. China seems to have built the same tension from class differences and the rising social needs (and of course frustration from censorship). The chinese government might be able to distribute

When it comes to the censorship of the Internet, especially on riots and uprisings, China has the patent. They've been doing it on a much larger scale and long before the Tunisian uprisings ever started - from Wikipedia:

The regulation was passed in the 42nd Standing Convention of the State Council on 23 January 1996. It was formally announced on 1 February 1996, and updated again on 20 May 1997... In December 1997, Public Security minister Zhu Entao released new regulations to be enforced by the ministry that inflict fines for 'defaming government agencies,' 'splitting the nation,' and leaking "state secrets." Violators could face a fine up to 15,000 Yuan ($1800).

They censored the July 2009 Urumqi riots, the anniversary of Tiananmen Square protests, etc. etc.

The point is, those doing the uprisings are a small majority compared to the size of the country, and the Chinese government is doing an extremely good job of containing the information.

When it comes to oppression, China are the masters. Any idiot can oppress a country using enough men with guns and some violent intimidation - but the government of China is so good at it, the population celebrates how the government is protecting them. Real experts in the field.

I just made a post saying "Inner Mongolia. Is Inner Mongolia being censored?" in Chinese on Renren. Nope, no problems, instant send. Asked a friend to ask their friends, grapevine says no protests in any major cities in Neimenggu.

This sounds like bullshit to me. Not even China censors so well that not a single mention of the protests is found ANYWHERE. Tianya would have like 20 threads a minute,like during the Uighur riots (okay, minor exaggeration). Sounds more like a made-up non-story.